This week, the media, including a front-page story by the New York Times, focused on the story of Richard Grenell, one of the top foreign policy communicators in the country. It was reported that Grenell was fired from the Romney campaign under pressure from conservative groups.

This is just false. He was never actually on the campaign payroll, he resigned, and the campaign's problems with him had to do with professionalism, not his sexuality.

There is actually very little data that this had anything to do with Grenell being gay. In fact, he was never even on the Romney payroll. When his role was announced, he deleted over 700 tweets. As someone who has had his own misadventures with Twitter, that's just not how one should act.

It seems clear that the Romney campaign was blindsided by the unprofessional behavior of one of the top foreign policy communicators in the business. When Grenell realized that he didn't have the faith of the campaign, demonstrated by not being put on calls with the reporters, Grenell saw the writing on the wall.

Yes, some conservatives expressed concern that Grenell was gay. But was it a loud roar? No. Kevin Williamson, a conservative by any measure, mocked those concerns at the National Review. Instead what happened was that Grenell tried to change the topic and attack the Romney campaign.

Perhaps they demonstrated poor vetting, but it is clear that they did not throw Grenell under the bus. He spun up some allied pundits, whether they are ideologically sympathetic on the right or gay media on the left eager to attack Republicans.

A bunch of angry pundits attacked the Romney campaign for something that didn't happen. And the media bought this attack on Republicans hook, line, and sinker without any evidence. Just another day in Washington: venal infighting, CYA, and a pliable media.

This week, the media, including a front page story by the New York Times, focused on the story of Richard Grenell, one of the top foreign policy communicators in the country. It was reported that Grenell was fired from the Romney campaign under pressure from conservative groups. This is just false. He was never actually on the campaign payroll, he resigned, and the campaign's problems with him had to do with professionalism, not his sexuality.There is actually very little data that this had anything to do with Grenell being gay. In fact, he was never even on the Romney payroll. When his role was announced, he deleted over 700 tweets. As someone who has had his own misadventures with Twitter, that's just not how one should act.It seems clear that the Romney campaign was blindsided by the unprofessional behavior of one of the top foreign policy communicators in the business.When Grenell realized that he didn't have the faith of the campaign, demonstrated by not being put on calls with the reporters, Grenell saw the writing on the wall.Yes, some conservatives expressed concern that Grenell was gay. But was it a loud roar? No. Kevin Williamson, a conservative by any measure, mocked those concerns at the National Review.Instead what happened was that Grenell tried to change the topic and attack the Romney campaign. Perhaps they demonstrated poor vetting, but it is clear that they did not throw Grenell under the bus.He spun up some allied pundits, whether they be ideologically sympathetic on the right or gay media on the left eager to attack Republicans. A bunch of angry pundits attacked the Romney campaign for something that didn't happen.And the media bought this attack on Republicans hook, line, and sinker without any evidence.Just another day in Washington: venal infighting, CYA, and a pliable media.